|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 2, 2014 13:52:53 GMT -6
You might be surprised. You could get a cheap Mbox system just for transferring to your preferred DAW for $300 or so. To me, that's worth it when saving a client that would have otherwise gone elsewhere... There is a program that can ingest just about any DAW file and spit out another. I could bring in a pro tools file and convert to reaper, or vice versa. The problem comes when folks use plug ins, which don't transfer. Not a terrible issue since I use mostly outboard, but some folks still prefer plugs for some strange reason. On the other hand, simply consolidating the files per song allows anyone to import to anything.. I think Bill is just saying that dropping a few bucks to have Pro Tools installed will pay for it self with the customers that you're saving by telling them you have it, rather than turning them away. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 2, 2014 14:26:00 GMT -6
There is a program that can ingest just about any DAW file and spit out another. I could bring in a pro tools file and convert to reaper, or vice versa. The problem comes when folks use plug ins, which don't transfer. Not a terrible issue since I use mostly outboard, but some folks still prefer plugs for some strange reason. On the other hand, simply consolidating the files per song allows anyone to import to anything.. I think Bill is just saying that dropping a few bucks to have Pro Tools installed will pay for it self with the customers that you're saving by telling them you have it, rather than turning them away. Oh, I understand what he's saying. I'm just saying in return, there is no real technical reason to do that, other than to bow to other's beliefs. I shouldn't have to, because it's not a technical need, it's just someone's bias. It's like saying "did you see that baseball game last night?" to a bunch of fans just to fit in, even though I don't care about baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 2, 2014 15:03:28 GMT -6
You might be surprised. You could get a cheap Mbox system just for transferring to your preferred DAW for $300 or so. To me, that's worth it when saving a client that would have otherwise gone elsewhere... There is a program that can ingest just about any DAW file and spit out another. I could bring in a pro tools file and convert to reaper, or vice versa. The problem comes when folks use plug ins, which don't transfer. Not a terrible issue since I use mostly outboard, but some folks still prefer plugs for some strange reason. On the other hand, simply consolidating the files per song allows anyone to import to anything.. True, there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat, but those workarounds don't allow you to say "yes, I have pro tools". To each his own. As a long time pro audio studio owner (past that these days), I would make every effort to support my clients wishes if they were a legit and returning client, no matter how lame their requests were. I'd do it either thru rentals or an eventual purchase if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 2, 2014 15:04:34 GMT -6
There is a program that can ingest just about any DAW file and spit out another. I could bring in a pro tools file and convert to reaper, or vice versa. The problem comes when folks use plug ins, which don't transfer. Not a terrible issue since I use mostly outboard, but some folks still prefer plugs for some strange reason. On the other hand, simply consolidating the files per song allows anyone to import to anything.. I think Bill is just saying that dropping a few bucks to have Pro Tools installed will pay for it self with the customers that you're saving by telling them you have it, rather than turning them away. Bingo. The client is ALWAYS right if you're SELLING something. If you're doing it for fun, pick your own poison. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 2, 2014 15:06:12 GMT -6
I think Bill is just saying that dropping a few bucks to have Pro Tools installed will pay for it self with the customers that you're saving by telling them you have it, rather than turning them away. Oh, I understand what he's saying. I'm just saying in return, there is no real technical reason to do that, other than to bow to other's beliefs. I shouldn't have to, because it's not a technical need, it's just someone's bias. It's like saying "did you see that baseball game last night?" to a bunch of fans just to fit in, even though I don't care about baseball. I get your viewpoint. I'm just trying to figure out if you really want the lost clients or not. It sounds like you don't care, which is fine. If I had all the money back I've spent on weird client biases, I could take a 3 month luxury vacation in Europe. Clients want what they want. Trying to convince them otherwise is a loosing situation as you yourself have noted earlier. If you want them back though, $300 will get you there. <thumbsup> |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Mar 2, 2014 15:06:45 GMT -6
Pro tools is as cheap as any of the conversion programs and it includes conversion utilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Mar 3, 2014 11:44:13 GMT -6
Yes, but Reaper does not offer any sort of DSP. Let's say you want Native, well PT Native costs more then reaper, but you get a fully featured DAW that handles virtually unlimited bussing and in-session printing. When delivering to a network 17 different mixes, all with unique elements, I can make a single session in Pro-tools and route everything internally and do the print of all the mixes in a single pass. Quite frankly, there is no other DAW on the planet that can do that.
Logic, Reaper etc are great for smaller scale projects, but they don't have the ability to scale in a workflow environment like Pro Tools does. If I am wrong about another DAW's functionality in this post, PLEASE correct me. I like to know these things.
Best,
Aaron
Aaron Your right of coarse. This was kinna my point in a previous post. PT is geared more toward post and video work than to the smaller studio guy I think. Big budget work for big budget rigs. But if you came and took a spin on PT Native in my tiny studio, bet you'd want to throw rocks at it by the end of the day. Even though your used to working on the platform. It's bottle necked bad on native. Maybe 11 addressed some of these issues?? I'm still on 10 because I've decided not to go down the Avid road anymore. But still no hate. Just easier for me on Cubase. First off Cowboy...I respect your wildcats immensely, but I am myself a Cardinals fan so we are starting from a place of total disagreement.  Secondly, I regularly use PT Native. I just mixed a full 5.1 feature on it, maxing out at 183 tracks, including 5 5.1 busses, 4 reverb 5.1 busses, 16 stereo busses for elements. Every track had the channel strip on it. Every bus had Pro C, every master bus had a Pro MB as well as loads of Pro q, cedar sends, 4 different interior verbs, 4 exterior effects verbs (all reverberate) and all constantly automating (All my VIs were printed to tracks in the prep stage so I wasn't dealing with them for the final mix). Also I ran a 20 gig 1080p video reference from the same machine. For the final mix I offloaded the video and print bus onto a separate machine. I feel as if I maxed out the capability of PT Native 10.3.7 on that show (PT 11 is more fully optimized for stuff like this). This worked better for me the the old TDM based HD systems running at their best. After that I am fully confident that with a few systems running satelite I could handle much larger projects without having to go full on HDX. And yes, there were flames shooting out the back of my 2009 mac Pro by the time we were printing, but as to a great test of PT Native's abilities I couldn't have been happier, especially since this wasn't even the most complicated musing matrix I've had to come up with for a mix on PT Native (that would be the ones allowing for simultaneous print stems of the shows I mix for Discovery or WEtv-all meeting the CALM act specs). I'm sure Nuendo could handle a large mix like this, and maybe Logic could as well, but in my experience with those programs (which is limited to the stuff I had to deal with in the '90s and/or stuff I play with on the side categories) they could not handle the complex internal routing and bussing I need to use on a regular basis. Reaper and Cubase , not a chance (and I treat grouping and busing differently). Now, to prove (what I believe is) your point, many of the composers I work with use Logic, Reaper and Cubase and there is nothing in the world I could say to them to make any of them believe that their favorite program isn't THE best program for what they do. So I guess at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. As long as the programs we use stick around (please don't cock this up Avid) then it's all good.  AD |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 3, 2014 14:36:57 GMT -6
Aaron Your right of coarse. This was kinna my point in a previous post. PT is geared more toward post and video work than to the smaller studio guy I think. Big budget work for big budget rigs. But if you came and took a spin on PT Native in my tiny studio, bet you'd want to throw rocks at it by the end of the day. Even though your used to working on the platform. It's bottle necked bad on native. Maybe 11 addressed some of these issues?? I'm still on 10 because I've decided not to go down the Avid road anymore. But still no hate. Just easier for me on Cubase. First off Cowboy...I respect your wildcats immensely, but I am myself a Cardinals fan so we are starting from a place of total disagreement. Secondly, I regularly use PT Native. I just mixed a full 5.1 feature on it, maxing out at 183 tracks, including 5 5.1 busses, 4 reverb 5.1 busses, 16 stereo busses for elements. Every track had the channel strip on it. Every bus had Pro C, every master bus had a Pro MB as well as loads of Pro q, cedar sends, 4 different interior verbs, 4 exterior effects verbs (all reverberate) and all constantly automating (All my VIs were printed to tracks in the prep stage so I wasn't dealing with them for the final mix). Also I ran a 20 gig 1080p video reference from the same machine. For the final mix I offloaded the video and print bus onto a separate machine. I feel as if I maxed out the capability of PT Native 10.3.7 on that show (PT 11 is more fully optimized for stuff like this). This worked better for me the the old TDM based HD systems running at their best. After that I am fully confident that with a few systems running satelite I could handle much larger projects without having to go full on HDX. And yes, there were flames shooting out the back of my 2009 mac Pro by the time we were printing, but as to a great test of PT Native's abilities I couldn't have been happier, especially since this wasn't even the most complicated musing matrix I've had to come up with for a mix on PT Native (that would be the ones allowing for simultaneous print stems of the shows I mix for Discovery or WEtv-all meeting the CALM act specs). I'm sure Nuendo could handle a large mix like this, and maybe Logic could as well, but in my experience with those programs (which is limited to the stuff I had to deal with in the '90s and/or stuff I play with on the side categories) they could not handle the complex internal routing and bussing I need to use on a regular basis. Reaper and Cubase , not a chance (and I treat grouping and busing differently). Now, to prove (what I believe is) your point, many of the composers I work with use Logic, Reaper and Cubase and there is nothing in the world I could say to them to make any of them believe that their favorite program isn't THE best program for what they do. So I guess at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. As long as the programs we use stick around (please don't cock this up Avid) then it's all good. AD Reaper has made a name for itself for it's routing and bussing.. Which is much more flexible and friendly than PT or the others.. Not sure why you think it can't handle significant track counts and bussing. |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Mar 3, 2014 16:20:52 GMT -6
First off Cowboy...I respect your wildcats immensely, but I am myself a Cardinals fan so we are starting from a place of total disagreement. Secondly, I regularly use PT Native. I just mixed a full 5.1 feature on it, maxing out at 183 tracks, including 5 5.1 busses, 4 reverb 5.1 busses, 16 stereo busses for elements. Every track had the channel strip on it. Every bus had Pro C, every master bus had a Pro MB as well as loads of Pro q, cedar sends, 4 different interior verbs, 4 exterior effects verbs (all reverberate) and all constantly automating (All my VIs were printed to tracks in the prep stage so I wasn't dealing with them for the final mix). Also I ran a 20 gig 1080p video reference from the same machine. For the final mix I offloaded the video and print bus onto a separate machine. I feel as if I maxed out the capability of PT Native 10.3.7 on that show (PT 11 is more fully optimized for stuff like this). This worked better for me the the old TDM based HD systems running at their best. After that I am fully confident that with a few systems running satelite I could handle much larger projects without having to go full on HDX. And yes, there were flames shooting out the back of my 2009 mac Pro by the time we were printing, but as to a great test of PT Native's abilities I couldn't have been happier, especially since this wasn't even the most complicated musing matrix I've had to come up with for a mix on PT Native (that would be the ones allowing for simultaneous print stems of the shows I mix for Discovery or WEtv-all meeting the CALM act specs). I'm sure Nuendo could handle a large mix like this, and maybe Logic could as well, but in my experience with those programs (which is limited to the stuff I had to deal with in the '90s and/or stuff I play with on the side categories) they could not handle the complex internal routing and bussing I need to use on a regular basis. Reaper and Cubase , not a chance (and I treat grouping and busing differently). Now, to prove (what I believe is) your point, many of the composers I work with use Logic, Reaper and Cubase and there is nothing in the world I could say to them to make any of them believe that their favorite program isn't THE best program for what they do. So I guess at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. As long as the programs we use stick around (please don't cock this up Avid) then it's all good. AD Reaper has made a name for itself for it's routing and bussing.. Which is much more flexible and friendly than PT or the others.. Not sure why you think it can't handle significant track counts and bussing. That's good to know. I still haven't seen it do such a thing, and even though I only played with it during the 30 day window, I was completely flummoxed on how to do anything in reaper. Staring into that routing matrix alone was like looking into the heart of Cthulu. Maybe I've been spoiled over the years with PT. 5.1 seems a bit wonky in Reaper, but that can be said about most DAWs. I couldn't figure out how to do an AAF import without a bit of research, only to find the best way to import an AAF was to use Pro Tools as a bridge. Not sure if they added that feature recently. If they did I'd be happy to give it another go. AD |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 4, 2014 15:45:22 GMT -6
Here's a very even-handed article on the current state of Avid: Create Digital Music talks about AvidInteresting details about a company fighting for survival in a changing marketplace. I think the good news is that the old draconian way of dealing with their user community finally appears to be gone, and replaced with a more collaborative approach. I hope it's true. Not holding my breath, however. For me, the surest signal would be to provide a direct software-only upgrade path to HD Native, somewhat like CPTK was. Or just bring CPTK back. Anything other than requiring a very expensive hardware dongle to get HD. |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Mar 6, 2014 13:17:47 GMT -6
Just saying', Digital Performer 8 runs in either 64 or 32, and supports AU and VST on Mac. Don't know about windows, probably VST. I still use 32 until plugs I like go 64. DP8 runs on either 64 or 32 today. That won't last too much longer though. AD |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Mar 6, 2014 13:20:19 GMT -6
Here's a very even-handed article on the current state of Avid: Create Digital Music talks about AvidInteresting details about a company fighting for survival in a changing marketplace. I think the good news is that the old draconian way of dealing with their user community finally appears to be gone, and replaced with a more collaborative approach. I hope it's true. Not holding my breath, however. For me, the surest signal would be to provide a direct software-only upgrade path to HD Native, somewhat like CPTK was. Or just bring CPTK back. Anything other than requiring a very expensive hardware dongle to get HD. It's my understanding that CPTK has been replaced by PTHD which you can select to work with PT hardware or PT aggregate i/o. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. AD |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Mar 6, 2014 14:33:28 GMT -6
CPTK is no longer available but is upgradable to HD software. HD software is not available other than bundled with PT HD Native hardware or above.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 6, 2014 15:00:00 GMT -6
CPTK is no longer available but is upgradable to HD software. HD software is not available other than bundled with PT HD Native hardware or above. Yes, and this is the thing I object to most about Avid's tactic to require a hardware purchase to get HD. So we have the odd circumstance of people searching for CPTK licenses to enable an upgrade path to HD when they don't need Avid's hardware. This is my situation. I would immediately purchase HD Native if such a thing were available, direct from Avid. Do I really need HD? Not really. But I want HD, frankly, just because. The irony of it is, this policy is costing Avid sales, and saving me from an unnecessary purchase at the same time. So maybe I should send them an email and thank them. |
|
